Quashing of FIR – Complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act pending -- Complainant is not proceeding further with his application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending since last five years – In the FIR, no reference of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act – Held, impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants -- High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice – Appeal allowed, impugned criminal proceedings/FIR registered u/ss 420/406 IPC quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Quashing of Criminal proceedings – Inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment -- When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of summoning order and complaint – Revisional Jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy available – Objection of -- Held, in exercise of revisional power, Court of Sessions or the High Court is not vested with the power of quashing a criminal complaint -- This power is available to the High Court alone under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereunder the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can pass orders to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice -- Thus, the prayer made in this petition could not have been granted by the revisional Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Court of Sessions in the first instance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. -- FIR u/s 174-A – Quashing of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. and FIR u/s 174-A – Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Intermediatory order -- Application of complainant to examine two witnesses rejected by Magistrate -- It is an Intermediatory order and is clearly a revisable order -- In the scheme of hierarchy, the party should seek invocation from the lowest court if there is concurrent jurisdiction -- Petitioner should seek redressal of his grievance before Court of Session under Section 399 Cr.P.C. as it would be more appropriate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.03.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside order of dismissal or say it differently, restoration of the complaint dismissed in default – Absence of complainant from the proceedings was not willful or intentional but due to justifiable reason and proceedings were pending for securing presence of the accused – Ld. trial Magistrate neither examined nor recorded any reasons if personal appearance of the petitioner could not be dispensed with on that day – Complaint filed by the petitioner is ordered to be restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015